Edit: I had debated whether I should mention answers. I mentioned them because there has to be some measure of value or progress. Questions demand satisfaction.
By all means listen to the village idiot. If they say something useful then remember it. But when people quote ideas that some guy in a toga came up with a couple of thousand years ago then they should only be given credence if those ideas are still valid. There must be some element of continuous refinement in the practise of philosophy, else it degenerates into a farce.I note you do not include in this list anything regarding truth. That I would agree upon. The search for truth is one task similar to a dgo chasing it's tail. Once you catch it, you can only nibble at the itch before you lose it again and resume circling yourself endlessly.
On the point of 'discredit philosophy that doesn't care about useful answers', does this point intend to target those philosophies which are frowned upon, those which seem not to provide answers which fit within our current understanding? If so then I'd suggest that this is the opposite of philosophy. If philosophy were concerned with use then it would not study things such as "I think, therefore I am" as it is completely irrelevant to the human experience. Why you are is not as important as what you do and what you are. Such things reduce humans to ineffective goo when thought upon too much.
What I would consider to be a true philosopher is someone who would not disregard the words of the village idiot less he miss some nugget of wisdom. Even the most innaccurate and biased piece of writing or quote can hold wisdom, it is the job of the philosopher to find that wisdom, not to judge the source.